From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: When Igor filed his Supplementary Memorandum to   
   supplement his adopting Jeff Harris' Memorandum, he included   
   a letter explaining that he was too sick to attend   
   personally and would like to attend by teleconference. And   
   if not, that his McKenzie Friend, me, who would attend might   
   help make his points if needed.   
      
   Igor Mozajko   
   Respondent (Cross-Appellant)   
      
   Friday Nov 8 2019   
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Court Administrator:   
   Federal Court of Appeal   
      
   RE: Mozajko v. HMTQ No: A-339-18   
      
   1. My appeal is slated for Nov 13 2019 though the Defendant   
   asked to postpone the hearing to which I consented .   
      
   2. On Jan 17 2018, I filed a Statement of Claim. As many   
   others had also filed the same template, Allan J. Harris was   
   named Lead Plaintiff T-1379-17 by case-management Judge   
   Brown.   
      
   3. On Jan 26 2018, after filing a motion to strike the   
   Statement of Claim of the Lead Plaintiff, the Defendant   
   filed a motion to strike my Statement of Claim.   
      
   4. On July 20 2018, Justice Brown dismissed the motion to   
   strike the Harris (A) Damages claim but did strike the (B)   
   Restitution claim as too trivial for Charter relief.   
      
   5. On Oct 2 2018, Judge Brown adopted his reasons for the   
   Harris decision to allow the (A) Damages claim but strike   
   the (B) Restitution claim.   
      
   6. Harris appealed the dismissal of the claim for the (B)   
   Restitution and the Defendant cross-appealed the dismissal   
   of the motion to strike the claim for (A) Damages. In   
   Mozajko, Defendant appealed the dismissal of the motion to   
   strike the (A) remedy and Mozajko then cross-appealed the   
   dismissal of the (B) remedy.   
      
   7. Given that the issues raised were the same as those of   
   Appellant Allan J. Harris (Appeal File No.: A-258-18),   
   Respondent/Cross-Appellant herein adopted that Memorandum.   
      
   8. On Sep 18 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the   
   Harris appeal for (B) Restitution and granted the Crown   
   appeal to strike his (A) Damages claim.   
      
   9. My Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Supplementary Memorandum   
   deals with issues that may not have been addressed in the   
   Harris Memorandum which I do address.   
      
   10. It is near impossible for me to get down to the courts   
   in Toronto. My mother is very sick and is prone to falling   
   which then entails a hospital stay. She is 87 and in very   
   frail health, kidneys, heart problems. Myself I have very   
   bad sciatica which prevents me from driving such long   
   distances. All the discs in my back and neck are bulging and   
   and herniated. Also my blood sugar is haywire getting   
   readings of 3.8  or 4.0. I have a very badly swollen foot.   
   Degenerative arthritis in my big toe. I have 2 dogs to look   
   after one is 10 weeks old and destructive right now.   
      
   11. I do have access to Skype or telephone if I could   
   participate that way. If not, I stand on the Harris   
   Memorandum and my Supplementary Memorandum and have nothing   
   else to say.   
      
   12. My McKenzie Friend, John Turmel, author of my   
   documentation, will attend any hearing should the Court need   
   an amicus to respond to any questions.   
   ________________________________   
   Igor Mozajko   
   CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809   
      
   JCT: I knew suggesting I be an amicus of the court would get   
   them upset. They wrote:   
      
   CR: Attorney General   
      
   Via Fax   
      
   Federal Court of Appeal   
   Registrar   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   Re: Mozajko, Igor v. HMTQ No: A-339-18   
      
   I write in response  to Mr. Mozajko's letter dated Nov 8   
   2019 in the above noted appeal and cross-appeal. I ask that   
   you put this correspondence before the Court as the response   
   of HMTQ ("Canada").   
      
   Mr. Mozajko's correspondence: (1) requests that he be   
   allowed to attend the hearing of the appeal and cross-appeal   
   via teleconference or Skype, (2) notes that John Turmel will   
   attend the hearing as an amicus, and (3) notes that Mr.   
   Mozajko has adopted the Memorandum of fact and law of   
   appellant in Allen J. Harris v. HMTQ (A-258-18) (the "Harris   
   appeal"), and filed his own supplementary memorandum. I will   
   address each of these issues in turn.   
      
   First, Canada consents to Mr. Mozajko attending the hearing   
   via teleconference or Skype.   
      
   JCT: Smart. Makes me not necessary. Though I should maybe be   
   at Igor's place for the call to pass along notes.   
      
   CR: Next, Canada opposes Mr. Turmel's participation in the   
   proceedings. Mr. Mozajko suggests that Mr. Turmel could   
   assist the Court in the role of "amicus."   
      
   JCT: As a McKenzie Friend, I can point out where in his   
   documentation is his answer, or maybe a "friend of the   
   court."   
      
   CR: The Supreme Court of Canada articulated that "amici"   
   should be appointed only in extraordinary circumstances   
   where the Court requires assistance and that, once   
   appointed, the role of an "amicus" is to assist the Court   
   and not to advocate for one party. Moreover, Mr. Turmel   
   cannot fulfill the role of an impartial advisor to the   
   Court.   
      
   JCT: Here's why I can be impartial, I know and can play   
   their cards better than they can. I play all sides at Bridge   
   and Backgammon by myself doing the best for all sides and   
   forgetting what I shouldn't know in the bidding. I don't   
   need to be partial or impartial to explain why something is   
   right or wrong.   
      
   CR: He has drafted hundreds of "kit" claims filed in Federal   
   Court in relation to medical cannabis, including the claim   
   that is subject of this appeal.   
      
   JCT: So what better McKenzie Friend to help explain Igor's   
   case?   
      
   CR: To the extent that Mr. Mozajko instead seeks to have Mr.   
   Turmel act as a representative (as opposed to an "amicus,"   
   this is contrary to Rule 119.   
      
   JCT: Never said what I can't be, representative. I can only   
   be McKenzie Friend or Friend of the Court.   
      
   CR: While this Court may have discretion to depart from this   
   Rule, it has held that a departure would only be appropriate   
   where the proposed representative is suitable, which Mr.   
   Turmel has not shown.   
      
   JCT: On Nov 7 2011, Ontario Court of Appeal Justices   
   Rosenberg, Sharpe and Juriansz let me fulfill the role of an   
   impartial advisor in the Magnificent Seven appeals which I   
   had written for Terry Parker, Gary Pallister, Mark   
   MacDonald, Debra McIntyre, Rob McCrady, Wayne Hearn, Sean   
   Maloney. From past experience where I had been allowed to   
   speak before the Ontario Court of Appeal, even Supreme Court   
   of Canada Justice Chouinard, Judge Rosenberg knew letting me   
   explain would be quicker than trying to have all 7   
   appellants try to explain and I got it done in under half-   
   an-hour.   
      
   CR: In the last several years, courts have dismissed as   
   meritless numerous proceedings brought by Mr. Turmel or by   
   others based on his kits:   
   Hitzig [2003],   
      
   JCT: Nice they noted I was in the Hitzig decision.   
      
   CR: Turmel v. CBC 2011 ONSC, ONCA, SCCA   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)